Video recording devices are being adopted by law enforcement agencies and other organizations to provide factual visual, audio, and metadata (such as date, time, latitude, longitude, temperature, and other metadata about the video, audio, and situation being captured) evidence of encounters with citizens and situations within view of the video recording device. Early implementations of video recording devices were generally similar to GoPro and other consumer-oriented body-mounted recording devices. Such devices include manual on and/or off buttons to start and stop recording, are affixed or in some way attached to a user, and have a limited amount of video, audio, and/or metadata storage capacity. With specific reference to a law enforcement application, the data generally is captured and stored over the course of a shift. At the end of the shift the stored data is uploaded to a centralized video management system.
In some cases recording devices rely upon the user to operate a mechanical slide switch that physically covers the video camera lens when the device is manually switched to the “off” position. To turn the recording device on, a wearer or user must slide the switch to the “on” position. Other recording device examples depend upon the user to press one or more mechanical control buttons exposed on the front of the device to start recording, stop recording, mute audio, or otherwise manually control the operation of the video recording device. Such system control buttons are often small and front-mounted, facing away from the wearer's point of view. As a result, the wearer must look down at the video recording device on their chest to ensure the correct button has been depressed, and/or to see that a status indicator light is illuminated.
Operating mechanical buttons may require the user to stop looking at a citizen, situation, or other potential threat in order to operate the video recording device. In the case of a law enforcement officer, looking away from one or more citizens involved in a situation can raise the risk of a situation turning into an incident, or worse yet result in law enforcement officer injury or death. The ideal case, and goal, is to avoid a situation turning into an incident. Therefore, there would preferably be no recording device control action that requires the user to take their eyes off an existing situation to reliably operate the device.
Recording devices, often also referred to as video recording devices, also have mechanical buttons that are dedicated to the basic functions of turning the device on or off. It would be useful to be able to query the status of a video recording device for information such as fault codes, remaining video recording time, and remaining battery life. However, such additional status query capability would require additional buttons, or complicated sequences of button presses, that would be confusing and complicated for a user to operate reliably. The user would like the ability to validate that the video recording device has adequate remaining battery or recording capacity before responding to a situation, without operating a complicated sequence of control button presses, or removing the device from the front of a shirt or other clothing to look at a control screen or connect the unit via USB, WiFi, BlueTooth, Zigbee, or other wired or wireless data connection to another device where status information can be obtained.
Mechanical exposed buttons on a video recording device have great potential to be distracting and/or confusing to a highly stressed user. A user who is pre-occupied with a situation that could rapidly escalate into an incident, or when an incident is already in progress upon arriving on scene, does not then also need the added stress of trying to operate mechanical control buttons. If there are exposed mechanical control buttons, there is the greater risk that the wrong button might be pressed at the wrong time. A recording may have been accidentally started earlier by an accidental press, or from the pressure of a seat belt across the chest pressing on control buttons on the front of an externally-mounted device, and a user may then activate the recording Start/Stop function, wrongly believing that the recording function had been activated when, in fact, it had been stopped. A video recording may not be started, or the user might inadvertently turn off the video recording or mute the audio recording just when it was needed most during an incident.
Exposed buttons and/or status indicator lights on the front, sides, top, or bottom of a recording device are plainly visible to a citizen facing the user. Therefore it is also possible for a citizen to be tempted to reach out and operate a control button to stop a recording or otherwise interfere with the operation of the device. An average citizen armed with a knife who is located within 21 feet of a police officer (the so-called “21 Foot Rule”) can charge and reach the officer before the officer would have time to react, bring a weapon to bear, and attempt to neutralize the threat. A citizen located within 21 feet of an officer could also charge, reach out, and attempt to press a front-mounted video recording device control button. A situation where there was more than one citizen located within 21 feet of a police officer would magnify this risk. A citizen acting on a temptation to attempt to turn off a video recording device would certainly turn a situation into an incident, which is to be avoided if at all possible. If the situation did devolve into an incident, the user might become involved in a struggle with one or more citizens, and an exposed control button might get accidently pressed through fist blows or other bodily contact. This could stop the recording during middle of the incident. A video recording device with no exposed control buttons on the front, sides, top, or bottom of the device would minimize the temptations and risks presented by exposed control buttons. As a result, the wearer of the video recording device needs a way to control the device without having mechanical buttons exposed that a citizen could attempt to operate.
One alternative includes exposed manual control buttons on the back of the video recording device, which are not in view of the citizen. These buttons, however, would be difficult to operate. A user of a video recording device does not want to remove the device to operate controls to start or stop video recording, mute the device, or execute other commands. Exposed control buttons on the back of the video recording device would also be subject to accidental button presses through the device getting pressed by a seat belt or other forces that could accidentally press the device into the wearer's body. Exposed manual control buttons on the back of a video recording device would present great risk of device control commands being accidentally executed.
As a result, a recording device should not have any exposed mechanical control buttons that can be accidentally pressed by the wearer, come into contact with surfaces that accidentally operate a control button, or can be operated by a citizen involved in a situation or incident. The preferred device should reliably capture video, audio, and/or metadata. The preferred video recording device should not stop recording, be muted, or otherwise be inadvertently switched into an operating state when not consciously intended by the device user. Yet a user of a video recording device needs a way to positively control the device and get positive confirmation feedback of command execution without having to look at the video recording device, or press any exposed buttons.
Another problem with prior video recording devices is that they are generally manually assigned to a user (a police officer, etc.) through a video recording device serial number. The video recording device can also be associated with a person through a manual data entry process and that the device serial number or other ID number is entered into a database (such as a central control assignment database) that logically associates the device to a law enforcement officer or other wearer. However, there is often no validation or verification process or other technology to insure that the person who has physical possession of the video recording device is actually the same person the device is associated with in a central control assignment database. For example, Officer B could pick up and put on a video recording device that had been associated in a device assignment database to Officer A. As a result, video recorded by the device might be attributed to Officer A, when in fact the video recording captured by the recording device was actually captured by Officer B. Or it could be that the actual wearer of the device at the time the video was recorded might never be known with absolute certainty. There is a need for at least a one-factor authentication method that positively associates a video recording device to a specific person, or to another equipment item that is assigned to the specific person.
Law enforcement agencies and other organizations frequently provide or require officers, first responders, organization members or other persons associated therewith to wear a uniform. In the case of police officers, it is well known that officers typically wear a uniform that is recognized to evoke a sense of authority. In that environment, the integrity of the uniform must be maintained. Moreover, a police officer's uniform is already used to carry and support various gear. For example, a duty belt is used to secure a holster, a firearm, a tactical light, an oleoresin capsicum (“OC” or pepper) spray canister, walkie-talkie, ammunition and other gear. In addition, as stated above, more and more officers are being asked or required to carry a recording device or other electronic devices. As a further example, it is known to provide officers with a combination radio microphone/speaker device that maybe attached to the uniform, typically a uniform shirt. Sometimes used in conjunction with an in-car video system, the microphone/speaker device may be attached to the uniform by means of a clip, a pin, or some other attachment device that positions the microphone/speaker device in a position to be readily grasped and used by the officer. Alternatively, the microphone/speaker device may be secured by a strap that can be attached to the epaulette or shoulder yoke strap of the uniform. One known device that allows for a combination microphone/speaker device to be attached to a uniform is referred to by the trademark “Walkieclip.” With such devices, a mounting strap is secured to a button on the epaulette or the epaulette itself so as to hang down the front of the uniform shirt. The mounting strap receives or accepts a clip or like attachment device on the back-side of the microphone/speaker device (or pin on the back of a holder for the device) so as to position the microphone/speaker at or near the breast pocket of the officer's uniform shirt.
Similarly, it is known to provide a clip or pin that can be used to attach a video recording device to an officer's clothing. For example, a spring loaded clip attachment is known. Such an attachment device receives the video recording device on one side, and includes a spring-loaded clip on the other side. The clip (or pin) allows the officer to attach the camera directly to the front of his or her uniform shirt. Alternatively, it is known to provide a lanyard or like device that can be placed about the officer's neck to hold and support the video recording device. In that and the clip or pin methods of attachment, the video recording device's position may be disrupted, rendering it possibly useless or ineffective. If on a lanyard, the device's position may be altered simply by running. To be useful, the camera or video recording device would preferably be directed to the officer's front in a direction that would allow the camera to record or otherwise capture essentially what the officer is seeing.
There are disadvantages to attaching a video recording device to a uniform by such means. As noted, the device can be dislodged or detached from the uniform either intentionally by, for example, another party that seeks to interrupt recording, or unintentionally by sudden or violent movement of the officer. If the video recording device is dislodged, either the recording device or the uniform, or both, may be damaged. Even if not completely removed from the uniform, the video recording device can be inadvertently repositioned so that the camera is directed away from a desired field of view. In many instances, it is preferable to maintain the position of the camera in a substantially forward direction so as to capture what the officer is seeing or confronting. Even so, especially in a stressful situation, an officer may turn quickly to view an incident or in response to a stimulus. When attached to a uniform by a spring clip or pin, or if on a lanyard, the video recording device may not turn or rotate in tandem with the officer. Rather, as a result of its own weight, the device may lag behind the officer and may not capture an event that the officer witnessed. The gravitational or “G” force of a rapid turn may be strong enough to detach the video recording device from the officer's uniform, causing the video recording device to go flying off in some unknown direction and location, and most likely not ending up in a position on the ground where the incident is within the recording field of view.
Still further, as stated above, an officer or other first responder in a high stress situation has little time or need to be concerned with proper placement, orientation and the workings of a camera or video recording device. For example, it would be difficult for an officer to manually activate a camera or other video recording device if he or she must respond quickly to a given circumstance. Rather, the officer's or first responder's first (and proper) focus is on the incident being addressed. It would be helpful to the officer or other first responder for the video recording device to be carried and secured in an effective and operative position so that the user need not be concerned with the device's attachment, orientation, or operation in a stressful or physically demanding situation. And, it would be potentially helpful to the officer or other person to maintain the video recording device in an operative position which maintaining both the structural integrity and appearance of the uniform so as to maintain the sense of authority and goodwill that is intended to be provided by the uniform in the first place.
To the Applicant's knowledge, until now, the focus on placing or securing recording devices to a uniform has been on attaching the device to the outside of a uniform. While this has proven effective in certain circumstances, there would be advantages to modifying a uniform itself to receive and support the device in an operative position. Moreover, it would be helpful if the position of the video recording device, and especially the camera of such a device, was maintained so as to best capture events that are being witnessed or experienced by the user. For example, repeated use of a microphone/speaker device does not necessarily result in a consistent position of the device. That may be acceptable for an audio only device, but it would be difficult to accept or even unacceptable for a video recorder or other camera. It would be useful for the video recording device to consistently be placed in a secure position that allows for device to record, consistently, legal quality video data that can be authenticated and otherwise maintained for use in a courtroom environment. It would be helpful to have an established, respectable position for the video recording device that allows for the capture of such data in a consistent and reliable manner.